Verification record
Every claim in this article was checked against the abstracts of the papers it cites, by a separate pass that was given those abstracts and nothing else. A claim marked supported carries the sentence that supports it, quoted verbatim below.
- References
- 14
- Claims checked
- 6
- Fully supported
- 6
- Checked on
- Oct 21, 2026
Claim by claim
In a single-season field trial in southern Kazakhstan, corn grain yield rose from 2.69 to 6.30 Mg per hectare as the polymer rate increased from 0 to 50 kg per hectare.
SupportedField trialField trial
“Corn grain yield rose from 2.69 Mg ha⁻¹ in the control to 3.60, 5.40, and 6.30 Mg ha⁻¹ at 30, 40, and 50 kg ha⁻¹, respectively”
The abstract confirms that during the single-season (2025) trial in southern Kazakhstan, corn grain yield increased from 2.69 Mg ha⁻¹ in the control (0 kg ha⁻¹) to 6.30 Mg ha⁻¹ at 50 kg ha⁻¹.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026
Seed-cotton yield rose from 2.90 to 5.46 Mg per hectare across the same range of polymer rates.
SupportedField trialField trial
“Seed-cotton yield increased from 2.90 to 4.20, 4.99, and 5.46 Mg ha⁻¹”
The abstract confirms that seed-cotton yield increased from 2.90 to 5.46 Mg ha⁻¹ across the tested superabsorbent polymer rates.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026
Irrigation water productivity rose from 0.60 to 1.40 kg per cubic metre for corn and from 0.29 to 0.55 kg per cubic metre for cotton.
SupportedField trialField trial
“Corn grain yield rose from 2.69 Mg ha⁻¹ in the control to 3.60, 5.40, and 6.30 Mg ha⁻¹ at 30, 40, and 50 kg ha⁻¹, respectively; corresponding irrigation water productivity increased from 0.60 to 1.40 kg m⁻³. Seed-cotton yield increased from 2.90 to 4.20, 4.99, and 5.46 Mg ha⁻¹, while irrigation water productivity increased from 0.29 to 0.55 kg m⁻³.”
The abstract directly confirms the reported increases in irrigation water productivity across polymer rates for both corn and cotton.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026
Lint percentage remained nearly unchanged, which the authors say indicates that higher lint yield mainly reflected improved stand establishment and boll production.
SupportedField trialField trial
“Lint percentage remained nearly unchanged, indicating that higher lint yield primarily reflected improved stand establishment and boll production.”
The abstract directly confirms that lint percentage stayed nearly unchanged, which indicated higher lint yield primarily reflected improved stand establishment and boll production.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026
Post-harvest soil bulk density varied little among polymer rates, with within-depth differences generally not exceeding 0.02 g per cubic centimetre.
SupportedField trialField trial
“Post-harvest soil bulk density varied little among SAP rates, with within-depth differences generally not exceeding 0.02 g cm⁻³.”
The claim accurately reflects the source abstract's finding on post-harvest soil bulk density across superabsorbent polymer rates.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026
The authors state that multi-season trials, soil-water monitoring, economic evaluation and full polymer characterization are still required before an optimum rate or long-term environmental performance can be established.
SupportedField trialField trial
“multi-season trials, soil-water monitoring, economic evaluation, and full polymer characterization are still required before an optimum rate or long-term environmental performance can be established”
The abstract explicitly states that these additional evaluations and trials are required before an optimum rate or long-term environmental performance can be established.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026
What this does and does not prove
It proves that every DOI cited resolves to a real registered work whose returned DOI matches the one requested, that none of them is retracted, and that each claim has a named sentence in a cited abstract behind it.
It does not prove that the paper as a whole supports the claim. An abstract can overstate its own findings, and a sentence can be read out of context. That is why the quote is printed here rather than summarised: if the check is wrong, you can see that it is wrong.
Evidence grading is automatic and conservative. Anything it cannot classify is marked unclassified rather than flattered upward.