Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“field efficiency”

14,954 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

plus 4,452 non-evaluative

Over time

1950 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10 ’20

plus 12 earlier · 1920s–1940s

Refine

More filters

Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SPE and field efficiency followed consistent trends.

Taxon: RiceOryza sativat0
Outcome: trend of SPE and field efficiencye0
Comparator: field efficiencye0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0
“The trend of SPE and field efficiency was consistent”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–809

t0
“Rice Sheath Blight”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–81

Title

Comparison of Field Efficiency with Ten Fungicides Controlling Rice Sheath Blight

MA Ya-fang Modern Agrochemicals 2012

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Azoxystrobin 250 g/L SC had field efficiency of 87.53%.
Observation Five named fungicides had field efficiencies of 71.97%-79.59%.
Observation Three named fungicides had field efficiencies of 63.92%-66.78%.
Intervention effect Prochloraz 15% ME had field efficiency of 46.73%.
Observation All ten fungicides were safe for rice plants.
Recommendation The authors recommended six named fungicides for controlling rice sheath blight.
Recommendation The authors gave priority to coumoxystrobin.
Recommendation The authors recommended mixture or rotation to retard resistance.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The applicator had a field efficiency of 69%.

Outcome: field efficiencye0
Value: 69%e0

Verbatim

e0
“field efficiency of 69%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1011–1034

Title

Development of mechanical urea briquette applicator for SRI

MAN MOHAN DEO; DIPANKAR DE; INDRA MANI; et al. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2021. doi:10.56093/ijas.v91i2.111578

Other claims from this paper (5)

Method / resource The applicator placed briquettes 51.44 cm apart in the row.
Method / resource The applicator placed briquettes at an average depth of 7.66 cm.
Method / resource The applicator had a draft of 92.41 N.
Method / resource The applicator had a field capacity of 0.05 ha/h.
Method / resource The applicator had a field machine index of 69.6%.

Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lower field speed had greater sprayer field efficiency.

Taxon: crope1
Outcome: sprayer field efficiencye0
Direction: moree0
Comparator: greater field speede0

Verbatim

e0
“Lower field speed had more sprayer field efficiency than the greater field speed”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1084

e1
“crop spraying operation”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 747–770

Title

Effect of Field Plot Design on the Efficacy of Boom Sprayer

Khurram Yousaf; Muhammad Iqbal; Tahir Iqbal; et al. Universal Journal of Agricultural Research 2014. doi:10.13189/ujar.2014.020702

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effect Increasing tractor speed decreased sucking insect and bollworm mortality.
Observation The best field speed for crop spraying was 4.0 km/h.
Intervention effect Working pressure of 400 kPa significantly affected insect mortality.
Association Longer fields of the same width had greater sprayer field efficiency.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field efficiency was 61.70 %.

Taxon: carrotDaucus carotat0
Outcome: field efficiencye0
Value: 61.70 %e0

Verbatim

e0
“field efficiency of 61.70 %”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–976

t0
“carrot”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–60

Title

Performance evaluation of single row tractor operated carrot digger

Agricultural Engineering Today 2020. doi:10.52151/aet2020444.1524

Other claims from this paper (16)

Method / resource Optimal blade angle was 21°.
Method / resource Optimal conveyor angle was reported as 250.
Method / resource Optimal shoot catch height was 2 cm.
Method / resource Digger field capacity was 0.11 ha h-1.
Method / resource Digging efficiency was 100%.
Method / resource Cut carrots were 0.62%.
Method / resource Bruised carrots were 0.90%.
Method / resource Picking efficiency was 62.29%.
Method / resource De-topping cutting efficiency was 100%.
Method / resource Digger harvesting required 27 man-h ha-1 versus 450 manually.
Method / resource Digger operational cost was Rs. 8242 ha-1.
Method / resource The digger saved time and cost compared with manual harvesting.
Method / resource Break-even point was 234 hours.
Method / resource Payback period was 2.21 years.
Method / resource Benefit cost ratio was 1.56.
Method / resource The digger worked better for single-row ridge sowing than broadcasting.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field efficiency was 73.7%.

Taxon: MaizeZea mayst0
Outcome: field efficiencye0
Value: 73.7%e0

Verbatim

e0
“field efficiency of 73.7%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1023–1048

t0
“Maize Planter”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–57

Title

Development and Performance Evaluation of a Maize Planter

Olufemi Adeyemi Adetola; Victor A Akinmade DergiPark (Istanbul University) 2020

Other claims from this paper (7)

Method / resource The planter metered three seeds per discharge.
Method / resource Planting depth averaged 2.47 to 2.60 cm.
Method / resource Seed damage averaged 8.33%.
Method / resource Hopper discharge weight ranged from 4.44 to 4.72 g.
Method / resource Mean planting space ranged from 48.20 to 49.80 cm.
Method / resource Machine efficiency was 87.66%.
Method / resource Field capacity averaged 0.30 ha/hr.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field efficiency was 76.57%.

Taxon: GladiolusGladiolust0
Outcome: field efficiencye0
Value: 76.57%e0

Verbatim

e0
“observed field efficiency of 76.57%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1630–1665

t0
“Gladiolus”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–53

Title

Development And Performance Evaluation Of A Gladiolus Planter In Field For Planting Corms

T. P. Singh; Gautam, Vijay Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2015. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1110395

Other claims from this paper (8)

Method / resource The planter dropped corms at nominal spacing with minor variation.
Method / resource Maximum mean spacing deviation was 3.53 cm.
Method / resource Maximum spacing coefficient of variation was 13.88%.
Method / resource Highest missing index was 6.33%.
Method / resource Highest feed quality index was 97.45%.
Method / resource No multiple corm drops were observed.
Method / resource Planter performance was better at lower speed and wider spacing.
Method / resource Field capacity was 0.103 ha/h.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field efficiency was 30.06%.

Outcome: field efficiencye0
Value: 30.06%e0

Verbatim

e0
“field efficiency of 30.06%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 461–487

Title

Evaluation of multistage automatic vegetable transplanter (MAVT) for pot seedlings of tomato

B. M. Nandede; Ranjeet Kumar; D. Padhee BIOINFOLET - A Quarterly Journal of Life Sciences 2013

Other claims from this paper (7)

Method / resource The transplanter missed 4–5% of plantings.
Method / resource The transplanter tilted 8–9% of plantings.
Method / resource Row spacing was 45±1.5 cm.
Method / resource Planting depth was 7±1.5 cm.
Method / resource Plant mortality was 3–4%.
Method / resource Field capacity was 0.114 ha h−1.
Method / resource The transplanter was judged satisfactory overall.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The planter achieved 75% field efficiency.

Outcome: field efficiencye0
Value: 75%e0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0
“Effective field capacity and field efficiency were 0.17 ha/h and 75%, respectively.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 807–890

Title

Upscaling and Evaluation of BARI Inclined Plate Planter

M A Hoque; M R Karim The Agriculturists 2016. doi:10.3329/agric.v13i2.26582

Other claims from this paper (7)

Method / resource The planter achieved 0.17 ha/h effective field capacity.
Method / resource Seed distribution uniformity coefficient was 97.
Method / resource Planting depth uniformity coefficient was 94%.
Method / resource The planter saved 90% of land preparation and maize planting time relative to hand planting.
Method / resource The planter saved 86% of land preparation and maize planting cost relative to hand planting.
Method / resource The planter payback period was 1.20 year.
Method / resource The planter break-even use time was 97 hours.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The planter had field efficiency of 79.52%.

Taxon: CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
Outcome: field efficiencye0
Value: 79.52%e0

Verbatim

e0
“field efficiency was 79.52%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 644–671

t0
“Cotton”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61

Title

Performance Evaluation of Manually Operated Single Row Cotton Planter

Rangapara Dineshkumar; Pandya Jaimin; M. Tech http://www.ijesrt.com/issues%20pdf%20file/Archives-2014/September-2014/7.pdf 2014

Other claims from this paper (6)

Method / resource The planter operated at 1.62 km/h.
Method / resource The planter had field capacity of 0.132 ha/hr and efficiency of 79.52%.
Method / resource Cotton seed damage was 1.236% greater with the planter than manual dibbling.
Method / resource The planter required 7.57 hr/ha versus 11.12 hr/ha manually.
Method / resource The planter seed rate averaged 3.031 kg/ha.
Method / resource Machine planting cost 168 Rs/ha versus approximately 209 Rs/ha manually.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A blade angle of 200 gave the best field efficiency.

Taxon: onionAllium cepat0
Outcome: field efficiencye0
Value: 200e0

Verbatim

e0
“blade angle of 200 for field efficiency”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1286

t0
“Onion”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–28

Title

Development a Unit for Onion Harvesting

Sh. El-Waseef; H. Abdel-Mageed,; Y. Ramadan Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering 2023. doi:10.21608/jssae.2023.180174.1121

Other claims from this paper (4)

Method / resource Scoop shaped blades with a share tilt angle of 250, speed ratio 2.11 and 11 cm depth gave the lowest total damage.
Method / resource The scoop blade configuration gave high efficiencies and specific energy with lower overall costs.
Method / resource Gator blades and 5 cm digging depth gave the best effective field capacity and field efficiency.
Method / resource A speed ratio of 1.7 gave the best effective field capacity, cleaning efficiency and specific energy.

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.

“field efficiency”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics