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
5
Fully supported
2
Checked on
Oct 21, 2026

Claim by claim

  1. In a field trial on acidic tropical maize soil, plots receiving conventional fertilizer and plots receiving fertilizer plus diatomaceous earth did not differ in grain yield, and both yielded more than an unfertilized control.

    SupportedField trialField trial

    “Grain yield differed among treatments (F = 18.18; P = 0.0011), with T2 and T3 statistically similar and both higher than T1.”

    The abstract directly confirms that conventional fertilization (T2) and fertilization plus diatomaceous earth (T3) were statistically similar in grain yield and both yielded higher than the unfertilized control (T1) in an acidic tropical maize soil trial.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026

  2. Bacterial community profiles in that trial came from one composite soil sample per treatment at each sampling time, and the reported diversity differences were not tested statistically.

    Partially supportedField trialField trial

    “T3 at 120 DAS showed the highest numerical Shannon index and provider-reported species-level classifications among treatment-time profiles, but these patterns were not tested inferentially.”

    The claim accurately combines findings across separate sentences in the abstract regarding composite sampling and the lack of inferential testing, but cannot be captured in a single verbatim span.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026

  3. The trial sequenced the 16S rRNA V3-V4 region, a marker used for bacterial and archaeal communities.

    Partially supportedField trialField trial

    “The 16S rRNA V3-V4 region was sequenced using an Illumina workflow”

    Abstract 1 confirms sequencing of the 16S rRNA V3-V4 region, but it only evaluated bacterial communities, and neither abstract describes this region as a marker used for both bacterial and archaeal communities.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026

  4. A Bacillus-based probiotic fed to grazing Nellore bulls reduced dry matter intake and average daily gain without changing nutrient digestibility.

    SupportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.

    “Probiotic supplementation reduced pasture intake (6.32 vs. 7.18 kg/d; P = 0.04), total dry matter intake (8.23 vs. 9.25 kg/d; P = 0.02), and total crude protein intake (0.83 vs. 0.92 kg/d; P = 0.02), as well as NDF intake (4.40 vs. 5.04 kg/d; P = 0.02), without affecting nutrient digestibility (P > 0.10). Average daily gain was reduced (0.75 vs. 0.91 kg/d; P = 0.02)”

    The abstract directly confirms that probiotic supplementation in grazing Nellore bulls reduced total dry matter intake and average daily gain while leaving nutrient digestibility unaffected.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 21, 2026

  5. A quinoa-derived synthetic community of nine isolates increased Arabidopsis biomass and root hair traits under moderate salinity in controlled experiments.

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

    “In Arabidopsis thaliana , SCDY1 promoted primary root elongation in a salinity-dependent manner and increased biomass under moderate salinity conditions, with the clearest overall effects observed at 120 mM NaCl.”

    The abstract supports each element of the claim across multiple separate sentences, but no single continuous span carries all details together.

    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.