Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“picking efficiency”

4 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

1970 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10 ’20

Refine ·

More filters

Clear filters

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Simplifying the hand picking motion does not increase picking efficiency significantly.

Taxon: Processing Tomatot0
Treatment: Simplification of the hand picking motione0
Outcome: picking efficiencye0
Direction: does not increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Processing Tomato”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–74

e0
“Simplification of the hand picking motion (therblig), does not increase picking efficiency significantly”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1356–1460

Title

Studies on the Development of a Mechanical Harvester for Processing Tomato

Hiroshi ARIMA Japanese Journal of Farm Work Research 1979. doi:10.4035/jsfwr.1979.36_1

Other claims from this paper (4)

Observation Hand picking working time for processing tomato reached 142.4 hrs/10a.
Observation Hand picking accounts for 52.2% of the total working time for processing tomato culture.
Intervention effect The once-over harvest produced a yield of about 60-70% of the traditional hand picking method.
Intervention effect The combination of hand selection and once-over method produced a yield of about 75-85% of the traditional hand picking method.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compared with manual operation and visual-recognition picking robots, the device did not increase the fruit damage rate.

Taxon: AppleMalus domesticat0
Outcome: fruit damage ratee2
Comparator: manual operation and visual recognition-based picking robotse2

Verbatim

e2
“compared with the manual operation and visual recognition-based picking robots this device’s production efficiency was improving without increasing the fruit damage rate”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1006–1175

t0
“Auxiliary Harvesting Device of Apple”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–55

Title

Design and Test of Auxiliary Harvesting Device of Apple

Chao Wu; Yang Wang; Qun Sun; et al. Recent Patents on Engineering 2019. doi:10.2174/1872212113666191211150026

Other claims from this paper (7)

Method / resource At 52 r/min the device collected 4900 apples per hour.
Method / resource At 56 r/min the device collected 5300 apples per hour.
Method / resource At 60 r/min the device collected 5700 apples per hour.
Method / resource At 52 r/min the fruit damage rate was 4%.
Method / resource At 56 r/min the fruit damage rate was 5%.
Method / resource At 60 r/min the fruit damage rate was 8%.
Method / resource Compared with manual operation and visual-recognition picking robots, the device improved production efficiency.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation and nitrogen supply did not significantly influence flowering and picking dates.

Taxon: okraAbelmoschus esculentust0
Treatment: irrigation scheduling and nitrogen supplye0
Outcome: days to first flowering, days to 50 % flowering, days to first and final pickinge0
Direction: not influenced influencede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Phenological development, including days to first flowering, days to 50 % flowering, days to first and final picking was not influenced influenced by irrigation scheduling and nitrogen supply.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1067–1259

t0
“okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 125–157

Title

Impact of drip irrigation scheduling and nitrogen levels on nitrogen use efficiency, phenology and soil nitrogen dynamics of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.)

C. Lokesh; B. Balaji Naik; M Uma Devi; et al. Vegetable Science 2025. doi:10.61180/vegsci.2025.v52.i1.24

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effect Nitrogen use efficiency was highest under 1.00 Epan irrigation and 75 % RDN nitrogen.
Intervention effect Branches per plant increased under 1.00 Epan irrigation and 100 % RDN nitrogen.
Mechanism The branch response contributed to higher biomass and potential yield.
Observation Soil nitrogen content varied across treatments.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Saprotrophic bacterial strains gave the same efficiency level as B. licheniformis strain VKPM V-10562 for seedlings from rosettes.

Taxon: strawberryFragaria ×ananassat0
Treatment: saprotrophic bacterial strainse6
Interactor: B. licheniformis strain VKPM V-10562Bacillus licheniformise6symbiont
Outcome: level of efficiencye6
Direction: no_changeinferrede6
Comparator: the B. licheniformis strain VKPM V-10562e6

Verbatim

t0
“picking strawberry rosettes”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–84

e6
“The use of saprotrophic bacterial strains was at the same efficiency level as for the B. licheniformis strain VKPM V-10562 or at a higher level of efficiency for the B. subtilis strain VKPM V-10641 and the drug Fitop 8.67, in comparison with the humic standard Phoenix, 0.05 %, which indicates the prospects of their use in the technology of growing seedlings from pickled strawberry rosettes”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1242–1634

Title

Application of bacteria strains of the genus Bacillus in picking strawberry rosettes

A. A. Shakhristova; T. V. Shpatova; V. I. Lutov; et al. Innovations and Food Safety 2024. doi:10.31677/2311-0651-2023-42-4-182-189

Other claims from this paper (10)

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.

“picking efficiency”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics