Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“yield decrease”

7 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

2000 ’10

Refine ·

More filters

Clear filters

Taxon: pepper ✕

Taxon groups are the verbatim names found in the abstracts (case-insensitive), not normalised: maize, corn and Zea mays are separate groups here. The Organism view merges them through NCBI Taxonomy.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both rootstocks did not decrease scion vegetative growth, fruit yield or size.

Taxon: peppert0
Treatment: both rootstockse0
Outcome: vegetative growth, fruit yield or the size of the scionse0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“both rootstocks showed good compatibility with the different scions tested and did not decrease vegetative growth, fruit yield or the size of the scions”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1210–1362

t0
“pepper”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102

Title

Evaluation of new rootstocks for resistance to soil-borne pathogens and productive behaviour of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)

L. Morra; M. Bilotto The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 2006. doi:10.1080/14620316.2006.11512097

Other claims from this paper (13)

Observation P. capsici was detected on trial farms.
Observation V. dahliae was detected on trial farms.
Observation Fusarium oxysporum was detected on trial farms.
Observation F. solani was detected on trial farms.
Observation M. incognita was detected on trial farms.
Observation Graffito was resistant to P. capsici.
Observation Gc 1002 was resistant to P. capsici.
Observation Graffito showed good tolerance to early, dense M. incognita populations.
Observation Gc 1002 was susceptible to root-knot nematode.
Observation Both rootstocks showed good scion compatibility.
Observation No rootstock was sufficiently resistant to V. dahliae damage.
Observation No rootstock was sufficiently resistant to F. oxysporum damage.
Observation No rootstock was sufficiently resistant to F. solani damage.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing nitrogen within 30 percent did not significantly decrease pepper yield.

Taxon: peppert0
Treatment: reducing nitrogen fertilizer application within 30 percente0
Outcome: fieldse0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Setting: Greenhouset0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“pepper in Greenhouse”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 76–96

e0
“the fields did not decrease significantly and the quality could be improved,the contents of VC and soluble sugar enhanced and the nitrate contents decreased when reducing nitrogen fertilizer application within 30 percent.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 153–374

Title

Effects of Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Application on Yield and Quality of Pepper in Greenhouse

Si Pengfei Northern Horticulture 2010

Other claims from this paper (3)

Intervention effect Reduced nitrogen improved pepper quality.
Intervention effect Reduced nitrogen enhanced VC and soluble sugar contents.
Intervention effect Reduced nitrogen decreased nitrate contents.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soybean meal + polyethylene did not significantly decrease pepper yield relative to the weed free control.

Taxon: peppere1
Treatment: soybean meal + polyethylenee4
Outcome: yielde4
Direction: no significant decreasee4
Comparator: weed free controle4

Verbatim

e1
“replicated four times in an organic pepper cropping system near Urbana, IL in 2015 and 2016”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 800–891

e4
“There was no significant decrease in yield compared to the weed free control for turkey litter or walnut shell treatments when combined with either bioplastic or polyethylene mulch or for soybean meal + polyethylene plots”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1472–1693

Title

Abrasive grit application for integrated weed and nitrogen management in organic vegetable cropping systems

Emily Elizabeth Braun IDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) 2017

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Turkey litter combined with bioplastic or polyethylene mulch did not significantly decrease pepper yield relative to the weed free control.

Taxon: peppere1
Treatment: turkey littere4
Outcome: yielde4
Direction: no significant decreasee4
Qualifier: when combined with either bioplastic or polyethylene mulche4
Comparator: weed free controle4

Verbatim

e1
“replicated four times in an organic pepper cropping system near Urbana, IL in 2015 and 2016”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 800–891

e4
“There was no significant decrease in yield compared to the weed free control for turkey litter or walnut shell treatments when combined with either bioplastic or polyethylene mulch or for soybean meal + polyethylene plots”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1472–1693

Title

Abrasive grit application for integrated weed and nitrogen management in organic vegetable cropping systems

Emily Elizabeth Braun IDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) 2017

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Walnut shell combined with bioplastic or polyethylene mulch did not significantly decrease pepper yield relative to the weed free control.

Taxon: peppere1
Treatment: walnut shelle4
Outcome: yielde4
Direction: no significant decreasee4
Qualifier: when combined with either bioplastic or polyethylene mulche4
Comparator: weed free controle4

Verbatim

e1
“replicated four times in an organic pepper cropping system near Urbana, IL in 2015 and 2016”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 800–891

e4
“There was no significant decrease in yield compared to the weed free control for turkey litter or walnut shell treatments when combined with either bioplastic or polyethylene mulch or for soybean meal + polyethylene plots”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1472–1693

Title

Abrasive grit application for integrated weed and nitrogen management in organic vegetable cropping systems

Emily Elizabeth Braun IDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) 2017

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pepper with sweet potato did not change pepper yield.

Taxon: peppere0
Treatment: Intercropping of pepper with sweet potatoe0
Outcome: yield of peppere0
Direction: neither increases nor was decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Intercropping of pepper with sweet potato neither increases nor was decrease the yield of pepper and LER value one.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1354–1469

Title

Effect Of Intercropping On Aphid Vectors And Yield Of Pepper (Capsicum Annum L.) In Southern Part Of Ethiopia

Alemayehu Chala; Yibrah Beyene International Journal of Technology Enhancements and Emerging Engineering Research 2014

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Pepper with maize reduced aphid populations.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize increased marketable pod yield.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize reduced unmarketable yield.
Observation Control plots caught about 25 aphids at each site.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize increased marketable yield by 39% at Mareko and 33% at Meskan.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize increased total yield by 33% at Mareko.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize and sweet potato reduced yield at Mareko by 13%.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize and sweet potato reduced yield at Meskan by 14%.
Recommendation The authors recommend maize intercropping for aphid reduction and yield improvement.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic products did not significantly increase marketable pepper yield.

Taxon: peppere1
Treatment: organic productse0
Interactor: pepper weevilAnthonomus eugeniie1pest
Outcome: marketable yielde0
Direction: did not increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“While the organic products did not increase marketable yield significantly, they did decrease overall damage”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1524–1632

e1
“The pepper weevil, Anthonomus eugenii Cano (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) is a major pest of pepper (Capsicum spp.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–111

Title

Organic Treatments for Control of Pepper Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Karla M. Addesso; Philip A. Stansly; Barry C. Kostyk; et al. Florida Entomologist 2014. doi:10.1653/024.097.0322

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Neem did not reduce pepper weevil feeding or oviposition in laboratory tests.
Intervention effect Kaolin clay reduced pepper weevil feeding and oviposition in lab trials.
Intervention effect diatomaceous earth reduced pepper weevil feeding and oviposition in lab trials.
Intervention effect Requiem reduced pepper weevil feeding and oviposition in lab trials.
Intervention effect The standard pesticide rotation doubled pepper yield per plant versus untreated controls in spring.
Intervention effect Spring pepper yield under the standard treatment did not differ from kaolin clay and surround plots.
Intervention effect Organic products decreased overall pepper weevil damage.
Recommendation The authors recommend further IPM testing of diatomaceous earth combined with insecticides.

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