Refine ·

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics

More filters

Clear filters
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

More soluble gypsum sources produced the greatest gross return.

Treatment
more soluble sourcese0
Outcome
gross returne0
Direction
greateste0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Total sound mature kernel yield and gross return were greatest for the more soluble sources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1431–1522
t0

“peanut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–33

Title

Gypsum material effects on peanut and soil calcium

A. K. Alva; G. J. Gascho; Yang Guang Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 1989. doi:10.1080/00103628909368179

Other claims from this paper (7)
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gross-margin analysis suggested inadequate return on investment for Maku Lotus seed production.

Outcome
return on investmente0
Qualifier
considering the high risks involvede0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“an analysis of gross margins based on a return of $lZ/kg suggests the return on investment is inadequate considering the high risks involved”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–526

Title

MAKU LOTUS SEED PRODUCTION IN PRACTISE

G.W. Neal Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 1983. doi:10.33584/jnzg.1983.44.1647

Other claims from this paper (1)
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Average gross return was taka 30187 per hectare.

Taxon
Chillit0
Outcome
Average grosse0
Value
taka 30187/hae0

Verbatim

e0

“Average gross was taka 30187/ha.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 527–559
t0

“Chilli cultivation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–18

Title

Chilli cultivation in Bangladesh-agro-economic survey and constraints to its higher production at farm level

S. M. Elias; Md. Israil Hossain 1984

Other claims from this paper (5)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Gypsum had no significant effect on yield, grade or gross return on Tifton soil.

Treatment
Application of gypsume0
Outcome
yield, grade or gross returne0
Direction
no significant effecte0
Setting
Tifton soile0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Application of gypsum to the Tifton soil, regardless of type of material, had no significant effect on yield, grade or gross return”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1735–1866
t0

“peanut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–33

Title

Gypsum material effects on peanut and soil calcium

A. K. Alva; G. J. Gascho; Yang Guang Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 1989. doi:10.1080/00103628909368179

Other claims from this paper (7)
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 1:2 millet-sunflower ratio gave maximum gross return and land equivalent ratio.

Taxon
milletse0
Treatment
Intercropping of sun- flower in millets at 1: 2 ratioe0
Outcome
gross return and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)e0
Direction
maximume0

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropping of sun- flower in millets at 1: 2 ratio recorded maximum gross return and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–422

Title

INTERCROPPING OF SUNFLOWER IN MILLETS UNDER RAINFED CONDITIONS

RAMAMOORTHY K; MUTHU SANKARA NARAYANAN; SUNDERSINGH RAJAPANDIAN; et al. Madras Agricultural Journal 1988. doi:10.29321/maj.10.a02114

Other claims from this paper (1)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen form significantly affected yield, quality and gross return of flue-cured tobacco.

Taxon
flue-cured tobaccoe0
Treatment
three forms of nitrogene0
Outcome
yield, quality, gross returne1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The effects of three forms of nitrogen on flue-cured tobacco production were observed for 5 yr”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–94
e1

“Significant effects were obtained for yield, quality, gross return and total nitrogen”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 96–181

Title

RENDEMENT ET QUALITÉ DU TABAC À CIGARETTE FERTILISÉ AVEC DIFFÉRENTES FORMES D'AZOTE

MICHEL LAMARRE; SUZANNE PAYETTE Canadian Journal of Soil Science 1989. doi:10.4141/cjss89-078

Other claims from this paper (3)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Black plastic mulch and/or transplants increased gross return and net economic value.

Taxon
MuskmelonCucumis melot0
Treatment
Black plastic mulch and/or transplantse0
Outcome
gross return, and net economic valuee0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
bare soil, direct-seeded productione0

Verbatim

e0

“Black plastic mulch and/or transplants increased yields, gross return, and net economic value over a conventional practice of bare soil, direct-seeded production.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 178–340
t0

“Muskmelon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–63

Title

Economic Evaluation of Different Cultural Systems for Muskmelon Production

D. Berle; E. A. Estes; D. C. Sanders; et al. HortScience 1988. doi:10.21273/hortsci.23.2.324

Other claims from this paper (4)
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

System 2 had the smallest adjusted gross return in three of four cropping sequences.

Taxon
barley, corn, pinto bean, and sugarbeete0
Treatment
System 2e1
Outcome
adjusted gross returne1
Direction
smalleste1
Qualifier
three of four cropping sequencese1

Verbatim

e0

“production of barley, corn, pinto bean, and sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 99–152
e1

“System 2 had the highest herbicide use in each cropping sequence, the fewest weeds at harvest, and the smallest adjusted gross return over the 4-yr period in three of four cropping sequences.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 993–1184

Title

Systems Approach to Weed Management in Irrigated Crops

Edward E. Schweizer; Donald W. Lybecker; Robert L. Zimdahl Weed Science 1988. doi:10.1017/s0043174500075937

Other claims from this paper (7)
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The best rice weed-control treatments gave no significant economic gain in gross income or net return

Interactor
jointvetche0weed
Second interactor
waterprimrosee0weed
Outcome
economic gain in terms of gross income and net returne4

Verbatim

e0

“to evaluate different methods (biological, manual and chemical) for controlling jointvetch (Aeachynomene sensitiva Sw.) and waterprimrose (Ludwigia erecta (L.) H, Hara) in rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 69–245
e4

“no significant economic gain in terms of gross income and net return was evident for the aforementioned treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 682–796

Title

CONTROL METHODS OF JOINTVETCH AND WATERPRIMROSE IN RICE

Liu, Lii-Chyuaan; Lozano, J.M.; Persaud, Tillak; et al. AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) 1986. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.261356

Other claims from this paper (7)
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The testing time presently allotted for gross return could be reduced without sacrificing accuracy in peanut line evaluation.

Outcome
the time presently allotted for testing could be reducede2
Qualifier
without sacrificing accuracye2

Verbatim

t0

“Peanut Lines in Oklahoma”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–65
e2

“when testing for gross return, the time presently allotted for testing could be reduced without sacrificing accuracy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 814–930

Title

Genotype X Environment Interaction Among Peanut Lines in Oklahoma1

K. E. Dashiell; J. S. Kirby; R. W. McNew Peanut Science 1982. doi:10.3146/i0095-3679-9-1-7

Other claims from this paper (1)

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.