View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Mechanism hypothesis original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest scarification response differences may reflect microclimatic differences .
differential response to scarification e0 microclimatic differences e0 Verbatim
e0 “differential response to scarification may be a response to microclimatic differences ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1586–1671 t0 “Mountain Mahogany ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–51 Other claims from this paper (7) Mechanism author interpretation original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Response differences were encoded in downstream signaling and response networks.
response differences e0 downstream signaling and response networks e0 Verbatim
e0 “response differences are encoded in downstream signaling and response networks ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1024–1102 t0 “Brassicaceae ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–86 Other claims from this paper (7) Method / resource observed review summary basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
The response in dex could assess differences in rice response to UV-B radiation.
Species differences of rice response to UV-B radiation e0 Not reported Comparator Value
Verbatim
e0 “Species differences of rice response to UV-B radiation could be assessed by the response in dex ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–959 Other claims from this paper (9) Mechanism observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar differences in response to Q arose from differences in grain-number response at spike dry weight.
Differences among cultivars in response to Q e0 differences in GN response at SDW e0 Verbatim
e0 “Differences among cultivars in response to Q were due to differences in GN response at SDW ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1357 t0 “Cultivar effects on relationship between grain number and photothermal quotient or spike dry weight in wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–108 Other claims from this paper (7) Mechanism author interpretation original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Small differences in chemical structure could cause large differences in feeding response .
sweetclover weevil t0 pest feeding response e0 small differences in chemical structure e0 Verbatim
e0 “small differences in chemical structure could cause large differences in feeding response ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 917–1006 t0 “Feeding Response of the Sweetclover Weevil to Various Sugars and Related Compounds12 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–84 Other claims from this paper (11) Observation Sucrose was the most effective feeding stimulant for sweetclover weevil. Observation Fructose, glucose, and galactose had moderate feeding stimulant activity. Observation Mannose, myo-inositol, and maltose had moderate feeding stimulant activity. Observation Ribose, xylose, and sorbose were slightly active feeding stimulants. Observation Sedoheptulose was a slightly active feeding stimulant. Observation Arabinose, arabitol, and mannitol did not stimulate feeding. Observation Xylitol, cellobiose, and raffinose did not stimulate feeding. Observation Soluble starch, ascorbic acid, and glucuronic acid did not stimulate feeding. Observation Glucosamine did not stimulate feeding. Observation Arabinose, ascorhic acid, and glucuronic acid deterred feeding. Observation Mannitol deterred feeding. Mechanism author interpretation original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute cultivar differences in in jury response mainly to genetic differences .
different response to mechanical damage e0 genetic differences e0 Verbatim
e0 “The different response to mechanical damage shown by the cultivars could be mainly due to genetic differences . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 960–1070 t0 “Olive ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 6–11 Other claims from this paper (8) Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Response differences attributable to phytochrome content were not found; the only response differences were due to de-etiolation.
Stem Tissue t0 differences due to de-etiolation e1 Verbatim
t0 “Pea Stem Tissue ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 98–113 e1 “A search for response differences which could be ascribed to differences in phytochrome content has resulted only in the establishment of differences due to de-etiolation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 228–398 Other claims from this paper (5) Association observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Differences in apex response were unrelated to photoperiod response or gibberellic acid sensitivity among wheats.
gibberellic acid-sensitivity/insensitivity differences e0 Differences in response e0 Verbatim
e0 “Differences in response were not related to photoperiod response or gibberellic acid-sensitivity/ in sensitivity differences between the wheats. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 455–597 Other claims from this paper (10) Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Differences among families in response to advancing maturity in volved changes in rank at different growth stages and differences in magnitude of response .
Differences among families for RTM e5 Verbatim
t0 “Smooth Bromegrass ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–73 e5 “Differences among families for RTM in volved both changes in rank value at different growth stages and differences in the magnitude of response ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1562–1704 Other claims from this paper (10) Mechanism author interpretation original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute white-light response differences to blue-light response differences .
differences in white light responses e0 different blue light response e0 Verbatim
e0 “differences in white light response s between T. cordata leaves grown in different light environments are caused only by their different blue light response ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1556–1711 Other claims from this paper (13) 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.
Oryza sativa
Triticum aestivum
Olea europaea
Lathyrus oleraceus
Triticum
Bromus inermis
Tilia cordata