Skip to content
Field Notes

The research side of permaculture.studio.

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
3
Checked on
Oct 22, 2026

Claim by claim

  1. In a two-season field trial in Taveta, Kenya, nutrient treatment significantly affected maize grain yield and biomass (P < .001), while treatment-by-season interactions were not significant for either (P = .772 and .408).

    SupportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.

    “Treatment significantly affected grain yield and biomass (P < .001), whereas treatment × season interactions were not significant (P = .772 and .408, respectively).”

    The claim accurately reports the findings and statistical values from the two-season trial in Taveta, Kenya.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 22, 2026

  2. Pooled across both seasons, NPK alone gave the highest grain yield at 148.23 g per plant, followed by OM+NPK at 147.77 and AMF+NPK at 146.17, against 92.03 g per plant in the unamended control.

    SupportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.

    “Pooled grain yield was highest under NPK (148.23 g plant⁻¹), OM+NPK (147.77 g plant⁻¹) and AMF+NPK (146.17 g plant⁻¹), compared with 92.03 g plant⁻¹ in the control.”

    The abstract directly confirms the pooled grain yield values for NPK, OM+NPK, AMF+NPK, and the control across the two-season experiment.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 22, 2026

  3. Pairwise treatment combinations did not significantly outperform NPK alone for pooled grain yield, and NPK had the highest two-season mean net benefit (KSh 1,401.08) and benefit-cost ratio (4.00).

    SupportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.

    “NPK generated the highest two-season mean net benefit (KSh 1,401.08) and benefit-cost ratio (4.00). Overall, NPK and NPK-containing pairwise treatments produced strong productivity responses, although pairwise combinations did not significantly outperform NPK alone for pooled grain yield.”

    The abstract explicitly states both that pairwise combinations did not significantly outperform NPK alone for pooled grain yield and that NPK achieved the highest two-season mean net benefit (KSh 1,401.08) and benefit-cost ratio (4.00).

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 22, 2026

  4. Root length was the one reported trait with a significant treatment-by-season interaction (P = .011), which the authors read as greater seasonal sensitivity of below-ground responses.

    Partially supportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.

    “Root length showed a significant treatment × season interaction (P = .011), indicating greater seasonal sensitivity of below-ground responses.”

    The abstract confirms the significant interaction and author interpretation for root length, but it does not state that root length was the only reported trait tested or found to have this interaction.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 22, 2026

  5. The trial used one maize cultivar (DK 777) at one site with three replicates per season, and reported grain yield per plant rather than per hectare.

    Partially supportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.

    “A two-season randomised complete block experiment comprised seven treatments replicated three times per season. Maize (Zea mays L.) cv. DK 777 received AMF, OM, NPK 17:17:17, AMF+OM, AMF+NPK, OM+NPK or no amendment.”

    The trial details match the text and grain yield is reported in g plant⁻¹, but no single span carries the full claim and the text does not explicitly contrast this against per-hectare reporting.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 22, 2026

  6. Reviews of AMF and microbial inoculants report that most supporting studies were conducted under controlled conditions, that field responses are highly heterogeneous and genotype-dependent, and that translation to field performance is a known bottleneck.

    Partially supportedMeta-analysisMeta-analysis

    “translation to commercial orchards remains constrained by microbiome instability, genotype-dependent responses, formulation and delivery limitations, and the absence of standardized multi-environment validation.”

    While the abstracts support these individual points across reviews focused on pistachio and fruit crops, no single source carries the entire combined statement verbatim.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 22, 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.