Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“yield decrease”

6 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

2010

Refine ·

More filters

Clear filters

paper W2954607536 ✕

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Under A2, cotton yield was projected to decrease by 29% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.

Taxon: cottonGossypium hirsutume1
Treatment: A2e1
Outcome: yieldse1
Direction: decreasede1
Value: 29%e1
Qualifier: By 2097e1
Comparator: 2009 baselinee1
Setting: California's Central Valleyt0

Verbatim

e1
“By 2097, yields under A2 decreased in comparison to the 2009 baseline in the following order: cotton (29%) > sunflower (27%) > wheat (17%) > rice (12%) > tomato (9%) > maize (8%)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–999

t0
“Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–109

Title

Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley.

J. H. Lee; Johan Six; R. J. Gilkes; et al. 2010

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Under A2, sunflower yield was projected to decrease by 27% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, wheat yield was projected to decrease by 17% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, rice yield was projected to decrease by 12% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, tomato yield was projected to decrease by 9% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, maize yield was projected to decrease by 8% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, alfalfa yield was 5% lower than under B1.
Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was 21% lower than under B1.
Association Under A2, soil carbon storage tended to decrease under climate change.
Association Differences in nitrous oxide flux between A2 and B1 were not clear.
Mechanism Soil carbon storage decreases under A2 are explained by lower soil C inputs and higher soil C decomposition.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Under A2, sunflower yield was projected to decrease by 27% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.

Taxon: sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
Treatment: A2e1
Outcome: yieldse1
Direction: decreasede1
Value: 27%e1
Qualifier: By 2097e1
Comparator: 2009 baselinee1
Setting: California's Central Valleyt0

Verbatim

e1
“By 2097, yields under A2 decreased in comparison to the 2009 baseline in the following order: cotton (29%) > sunflower (27%) > wheat (17%) > rice (12%) > tomato (9%) > maize (8%)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–999

t0
“Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–109

Title

Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley.

J. H. Lee; Johan Six; R. J. Gilkes; et al. 2010

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was projected to decrease by 29% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, wheat yield was projected to decrease by 17% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, rice yield was projected to decrease by 12% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, tomato yield was projected to decrease by 9% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, maize yield was projected to decrease by 8% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, alfalfa yield was 5% lower than under B1.
Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was 21% lower than under B1.
Association Under A2, soil carbon storage tended to decrease under climate change.
Association Differences in nitrous oxide flux between A2 and B1 were not clear.
Mechanism Soil carbon storage decreases under A2 are explained by lower soil C inputs and higher soil C decomposition.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Under A2, wheat yield was projected to decrease by 17% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment: A2e1
Outcome: yieldse1
Direction: decreasede1
Value: 17%e1
Qualifier: By 2097e1
Comparator: 2009 baselinee1
Setting: California's Central Valleyt0

Verbatim

e1
“By 2097, yields under A2 decreased in comparison to the 2009 baseline in the following order: cotton (29%) > sunflower (27%) > wheat (17%) > rice (12%) > tomato (9%) > maize (8%)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–999

t0
“Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–109

Title

Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley.

J. H. Lee; Johan Six; R. J. Gilkes; et al. 2010

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was projected to decrease by 29% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, sunflower yield was projected to decrease by 27% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, rice yield was projected to decrease by 12% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, tomato yield was projected to decrease by 9% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, maize yield was projected to decrease by 8% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, alfalfa yield was 5% lower than under B1.
Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was 21% lower than under B1.
Association Under A2, soil carbon storage tended to decrease under climate change.
Association Differences in nitrous oxide flux between A2 and B1 were not clear.
Mechanism Soil carbon storage decreases under A2 are explained by lower soil C inputs and higher soil C decomposition.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Under A2, rice yield was projected to decrease by 12% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.

Taxon: riceOryza sativae1
Treatment: A2e1
Outcome: yieldse1
Direction: decreasede1
Value: 12%e1
Qualifier: By 2097e1
Comparator: 2009 baselinee1
Setting: California's Central Valleyt0

Verbatim

e1
“By 2097, yields under A2 decreased in comparison to the 2009 baseline in the following order: cotton (29%) > sunflower (27%) > wheat (17%) > rice (12%) > tomato (9%) > maize (8%)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–999

t0
“Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–109

Title

Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley.

J. H. Lee; Johan Six; R. J. Gilkes; et al. 2010

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was projected to decrease by 29% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, sunflower yield was projected to decrease by 27% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, wheat yield was projected to decrease by 17% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, tomato yield was projected to decrease by 9% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, maize yield was projected to decrease by 8% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, alfalfa yield was 5% lower than under B1.
Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was 21% lower than under B1.
Association Under A2, soil carbon storage tended to decrease under climate change.
Association Differences in nitrous oxide flux between A2 and B1 were not clear.
Mechanism Soil carbon storage decreases under A2 are explained by lower soil C inputs and higher soil C decomposition.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Under A2, tomato yield was projected to decrease by 9% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.

Taxon: tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
Treatment: A2e1
Outcome: yieldse1
Direction: decreasede1
Value: 9%e1
Qualifier: By 2097e1
Comparator: 2009 baselinee1
Setting: California's Central Valleyt0

Verbatim

e1
“By 2097, yields under A2 decreased in comparison to the 2009 baseline in the following order: cotton (29%) > sunflower (27%) > wheat (17%) > rice (12%) > tomato (9%) > maize (8%)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–999

t0
“Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–109

Title

Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley.

J. H. Lee; Johan Six; R. J. Gilkes; et al. 2010

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was projected to decrease by 29% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, sunflower yield was projected to decrease by 27% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, wheat yield was projected to decrease by 17% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, rice yield was projected to decrease by 12% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, maize yield was projected to decrease by 8% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, alfalfa yield was 5% lower than under B1.
Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was 21% lower than under B1.
Association Under A2, soil carbon storage tended to decrease under climate change.
Association Differences in nitrous oxide flux between A2 and B1 were not clear.
Mechanism Soil carbon storage decreases under A2 are explained by lower soil C inputs and higher soil C decomposition.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Under A2, maize yield was projected to decrease by 8% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.

Taxon: maizeZea mayse1
Treatment: A2e1
Outcome: yieldse1
Direction: decreasede1
Value: 8%e1
Qualifier: By 2097e1
Comparator: 2009 baselinee1
Setting: California's Central Valleyt0

Verbatim

e1
“By 2097, yields under A2 decreased in comparison to the 2009 baseline in the following order: cotton (29%) > sunflower (27%) > wheat (17%) > rice (12%) > tomato (9%) > maize (8%)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–999

t0
“Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–109

Title

Effect of climate change on field crop production and greenhouse gas emissions in California's Central Valley.

J. H. Lee; Johan Six; R. J. Gilkes; et al. 2010

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was projected to decrease by 29% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, sunflower yield was projected to decrease by 27% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, wheat yield was projected to decrease by 17% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, rice yield was projected to decrease by 12% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, tomato yield was projected to decrease by 9% by 2097 relative to the 2009 baseline.
Intervention effect Under A2, alfalfa yield was 5% lower than under B1.
Intervention effect Under A2, cotton yield was 21% lower than under B1.
Association Under A2, soil carbon storage tended to decrease under climate change.
Association Differences in nitrous oxide flux between A2 and B1 were not clear.
Mechanism Soil carbon storage decreases under A2 are explained by lower soil C inputs and higher soil C decomposition.

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