View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Observation observed original result not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Stem relative water content did not decrease significantly during the day.
Outcomerelative water content (RWC) e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “stem relative water content (RWC) and stem hydraulic conductivity (K(s)) of this bamboo species did not decrease significantly during the day ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 362–503 t0 “Sinarundinaria nitida (Mitford) Nakai ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 246–283 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
In fection by Albugo Candida caused a nonsignificant decrease of relative water content in Cakile maritima .
Outcomerelative water content e1 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Puccinia lagenophorae , in fecting Senecio glaucus and Albugo Candida in fecting Cakile maritima during late in fection ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 337–452 e1 “The in fection of Senecio caused a significant decrease of relative water content , while the in fection of Cakile caused a nonsignificant decrease of the same parameter ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–770 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Leaf relative water content decrease d slightly without significant differences.
OutcomeLeaf relative water content e0 Qualifieroverall decrease in relative water content was small e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Leaf relative water content and SPAD values also decrease d, but the overall decrease in relative water content was small, and the differences were not significant. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 839–1002 t0 “Cd Stress on Morphological and Physiological Characteristics of Maize Seedlings ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–90 Other claims from this paper (12) Intervention effect observed original result positive not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
In oculation prevented significant loss of leaf relative water content under simulated stress.
Treatmentinoculated plants e0 Outcomerelative water content of leaves e0 Directionneither a significant decrease e0 Comparatoruninoculated ones e0 Not reported Taxon
Verbatim
e0 “neither a significant decrease in the relative water content of leaves nor a strong in hibition of acetylene reduction was observed for in oculated plants compared to the uninoculated ones ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 620–806 Other claims from this paper (9) Association observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Leaf relative water content decrease d with salt, but the decline was not significant.
Treatmentincreasing salt e0 OutcomeLeaf relative water content e0 Verbatim
e0 “Leaf relative water content decrease d with in creasing salt, but this decrease was not significant. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 859–957 t0 “maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 103–108 Other claims from this paper (12) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Specific leaf water content did not significantly decrease during drought stress.
Treatmentdrought stress e0 Directiondid not significantly decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 98–131 e0 “SLFW and SLWC did not significantly decrease during drought stress period. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1290–1364 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
None of the tested maple species showed a significant decline in leaf relative water content under drought.
Treatmentone month long summer drought e1 Outcomeleaf relative water content e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “none from tested species showed a significant decrease in leaf relative water content in dicating stress. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 634–738 t0 “maples (Acer sp.) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–67 e1 “reactions of juvenile plants of eight maple species to one month long summer drought ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 427–511 Other claims from this paper (5) Observation observed original result not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Stem hydraulic conductivity did not decrease significantly during the day.
Outcomehydraulic conductivity (K(s)) e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “stem relative water content (RWC) and stem hydraulic conductivity (K(s)) of this bamboo species did not decrease significantly during the day ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 362–503 t0 “Sinarundinaria nitida (Mitford) Nakai ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 246–283 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
At 100% relative humidity, chilling caused no significant fall in leaf soluble protein.
Treatmentchilled at 5°C, 100% r.h. e0 Outcomeleaf soluble protein e0 Directionno significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “When plants of each species were chilled at 5°C, 100% r.h., water loss was greatly reduced or prevented and there was no significant decrease in leaf soluble protein ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1177–1342 e1 “pea (chill-resistant), mung bean (highly chill-sensitive), and tomato and french bean ( in termediate chilling-sensitivity) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 223–344 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Cadmium caused no reliable difference in cellular juice concentration in red Lolo Ross lettuce.
Outcomeconcentration of cell juice e3 Directionabsence of a reliable difference e3 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “the effect of cadmium ions on the water exchange parameters in green Lolo and red Lolo Ross varieties of Lactuca sativa L. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–160 e2 “the water deficit decrease , an in crease in the parameters of relative turgescence and free water content to the fourteenth day of exposure was noted for the red Lolo Ross variety ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 976–1154 e3 “the absence of a reliable difference in the parameter of the concentration of cell juice ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1165–1253 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.