View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Intervention effect observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Onion trial result: N use efficiency ( NUE ) was higher.
OutcomeN use efficiency (NUE) e0 Comparatorfurrow system e0 Verbatim
t0 “Onion ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–25 e0 “Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) and N use efficiency ( NUE ) were higher with the drip system than with the furrow system ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1111–1237 Other claims from this paper (13) Intervention effect observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen use efficiency ( NUE ) reached or changed as reported under 75 kg N ha^{-1}.
Treatment75 kg N ha^{-1} e0 OutcomeNitrogen use efficiency (NUE) e0 Not reported Comparator Setting Value
Verbatim
e0 “Nitrogen use efficiency ( NUE ) was optimum at 75 kg N ha^{-1} during both seasons ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1365–1445 e1 “maize (Zea mays L.) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 86–105 Other claims from this paper (12) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The AI1 alternate irrigation treatment did not significantly decline tomato yield, total N uptake (TNU) or N use efficiency ( NUE ).
Outcomeyield, total N uptake (TNU) and N use efficiency (NUE) e0 Directiondid not decline e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “AI1 did not decline yield, total N uptake (TNU) and N use efficiency ( NUE ) significantly ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1200–1288 t0 “tomato ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 110–116 Other claims from this paper (13) Intervention effect Compared with conventional irrigation, alternate partial root-zone irrigation decreased water consumption of tomato by 16.0%-33.1%. Intervention effect Compared with conventional irrigation, alternate partial root-zone irrigation increased water use efficiency of yield (WUEy) of tomato by 6.7%-11.9%. Intervention effect Compared with conventional irrigation, alternate partial root-zone irrigation increased water use efficiency of dry mass (WUEd) of tomato by 10.2%-15.9%. Intervention effect Compared with the low urea rate (NL), the middle urea rate (NM) enhanced tomato yield by 28.5%. Intervention effect Compared with NL, NM enhanced tomato total N uptake (TNU) by 35.3%. Intervention effect Compared with NL, NM enhanced tomato WUEy by 22.6%. Intervention effect Compared with NL, NM enhanced tomato WUEd by 16.3%. Intervention effect Compared with CINL, AI1NM reduced tomato water consumption by 12.5%. Intervention effect Compared with CINL, AI1NM increased tomato yield by 35.5%. Intervention effect Compared with CINL, AI1NM increased tomato total N uptake (TNU) by 58.4%. Intervention effect Compared with CINL, AI1NM increased tomato WUEy by 54.4%. Intervention effect Compared with CINL, AI1NM increased tomato WUEd by 53.7%. Recommendation The authors conclude that AI1 can improve water use efficiency and total N uptake of tomato simultaneously at a medium urea rate. Observation observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Physiological N use efficiency of the low- NUE cultivar Elio was about 18% lower than that of high- NUE cultivars.
Comparatorhigh NUE cultivars e5 Verbatim
e0 “Effects of N fertilizer application rates on grain yield and physiological N use efficiency (PE) in relation to the accumulation and redistribution of biomass and N in rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars were studied ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 138–351 e5 “Grain yield and PE of Elio were about 20% and 18% lower than those of high NUE cultivars ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 848–936 Other claims from this paper (6) Observation observed original result significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Moisture and nitrogen significantly influenced WUE and NUE .
Outcomewater use efficiency (WUE), N use efficiency (NUE) e0 Verbatim
e0 “Soil moisture and N application rate significantly influenced water use efficiency (WUE), N use efficiency ( NUE ) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 884–996 t0 “wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–50 Other claims from this paper (9) Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
N internal efficiency accounted for 52% of the variation in heterosis for NUE .
Outcomevariation in heterosis for NUE e1 Verbatim
t0 “Physiological Basis of Heterosis for Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–69 e1 “N internal efficiency (NIE) accounted for 52% of the variation in heterosis for NUE ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–917 Other claims from this paper (7) Association observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
The wheat hybrid showed an improvement in N use efficiency ( NUE ).
OutcomeN use efficiency (NUE) e6 Verbatim
e5 “The wheat hybrid reached a higher grain yield with fewer N inputs than the conventional genotype ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1254–1350 e6 “it demonstrated an improvement in N use efficiency ( NUE ) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1356–1412 Other claims from this paper (14) Association observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Loam soil gave highest N use efficiency ( NUE )
OutcomeN use efficiency (NUE) e0 Verbatim
e0 “Cultivars grown on loam soil had the highest preand post-anthesis N accumulation (NA) of total plant, leaves, stems and grains, as well as nitrogen remobilization to grain (NR), grain yield and N use efficiency ( NUE ). ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1138–1355 t0 “winter wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–92 Other claims from this paper (19) Association observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Plant N use efficiency was higher toward the poles.
Verbatim
e0 “NUE higher towards the poles ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1161–1189 e1 “plant nitrogen (N) uptake (Nup) and N use efficiency ( NUE ) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 141–199 Other claims from this paper (12) Recommendation author interpretation original result positive basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
Authors concluded this practice could increase aboveground N accumulation, NUE and yield.
Outcomeaboveground N accumulation, N use efficiency, and yield production e0 Verbatim
e0 “increase aboveground N accumulation, N use efficiency , and yield production of maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2078–2162 Other claims from this paper (10) Recommendation author interpretation original result positive basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer N use can be very profitable, with high NUE , for smallholder maize production in Uganda.
Verbatim
e1 “Fertilizer N use can be very profitable, with high NUE , for smallholder maize production in Uganda ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1242–1340 Other claims from this paper (13) Recommendation author interpretation original result basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that perennial mobile green manures could increase nitrogen use efficiency over traditional green manures.
Outcomenitrogen use efficiency (NUE) e1 Verbatim
e0 “We conclude that PMGMs have potential to increase NUE over that of traditional green manures ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1480–1572 t0 “Supplying nitrogen (N) to crops by incorporating ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–57 e1 “nitrogen use efficiency ( NUE ) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–355 Other claims from this paper (5) Mechanism observed original result simulated Claim · model-written summary
Tradeoffs with nitrogen use efficiency can select against fixation.
Outcomeselect against N fixation e0 QualifierN use efficiency (NUE) e0 Verbatim
e0 “N use efficiency ( NUE ) can select against N fixation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 542–594 t0 “nitrogen fixation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–59 e1 “Symbiotic nitrogen (N) fixing trees ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–35 Other claims from this paper (7) Mechanism observed original result simulated Claim · model-written summary
N application rate determined total N input and affected N uptake and utilization efficiency and NUE .
TreatmentN application rate e0 Qualifierinfluenced the N uptake and utilization efficiency e0 Verbatim
e0 “The N application rate determined the total N input, influenced the N uptake and utilization efficiency , and therefore the NUE ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 736–862 t0 “rice ”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 71–75 Other claims from this paper (9) Mechanism author interpretation review summary negative basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
GRV DELLA accumulation reduces nitrogen- use efficiency .
Taxonsemi-dwarf cereals e1 OutcomeN-use efficiency (NUE) e0 Verbatim
e0 “GRV DELLAs accumulation confers reduced N- use efficiency ( NUE ) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 417–479 e1 “semi-dwarf cereals ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 70–88 Other claims from this paper (10) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
N use efficiency indices NUE , NUpE and NUtE discriminated the manure effects on corn, but NPE and NHI did not.
Outcomedistinctions between N supply dynamics of manures e6 Directionwell discriminated e6 QualifierN use efficiency (NUE), N uptake efficiency (NUpE), N utilization efficiency (NUtE) e6 ComparatorN physiological efficiency (NPE) and N harvest index (NHI) e6 Verbatim
e6 “The distinctions between N supply dynamics of manures and their influences on yield, grain N removal, and total above-ground plant N uptake of corn were well discriminated by N use efficiency ( NUE ), N uptake efficiency (NUpE), N utilization efficiency (NUtE), N agronomic efficiency (NAE), and N recovery efficiency (NRE), but not by N physiological efficiency (NPE) and N harvest index (NHI) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1018–1410 Other claims from this paper (11) Method / resource observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
The RI-NFOA midseason rate after 67 kg N ha−1 preplant nitrogen achieved 65% NUE .
Treatment67 kg N ha−1 preplant application e0 OutcomeN use efficiency (NUE) e0 Comparator134 kg N ha−1 fixed rate split applied e1 Verbatim
e0 “With the 67 kg N ha−1 preplant application, midseason RI-NFOA-based N rates resulted in an N use efficiency ( NUE ) of 65% ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–720 e1 “while the 134 kg N ha−1 fixed rate split applied had 56% NUE ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 721–781 t0 “corn ”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 108–112 Other claims from this paper (3) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
NUE , NUpE, NUtE, NAE and NRE use d for chemical fertilizer N were also applicable to manure N efficiency .
Outcomemanure N efficiency e0 QualifierNUE, NUpE, NUtE, NAE, and NRE e0 Comparatorchemical fertilizer N e0 Verbatim
e0 “The NUE , NUpE, NUtE, NAE, and NRE parameters use d to evaluate chemical fertilizer N were also applicable to evaluate manure N efficiency ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1611–1747 Other claims from this paper (11) 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.