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
- Sep 25, 2026
Claim by claim
In a three-cycle field trial, little millet produced the highest dry matter (2,560 to 2,650 kg per hectare) and grain yield (770 to 1,890 kg per hectare) of six millet species intercropped with young Casuarina junghuhniana trees.
SupportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.
“Little millet always had the highest DMP (2560–2650 kg ha-1) and grain yield (770–1890 kg ha-1) under intercropping”
The abstract confirms that across three consecutive crop cycles testing six millet species with young Casuarina junghuhniana trees, little millet achieved the highest dry matter production (2,560–2,650 kg/ha) and grain yield (770–1,890 kg/ha).
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
The trial reported a land equivalent ratio of 2.92 for Casuarina plus little millet and 2.51 for Casuarina plus barnyard millet, and identified kodo millet as the least compatible intercrop.
SupportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.
“C. junghuhniana + little millet produced the highest total land equivalent ratio (land equivalent ratio (LER) = 2.92) followed by C. junghuhniana + barnyard millet (LER = 2.51). Maximum net income (₹26000) and benefit to cost ratio (B : C = 3.16) was also obtained for little millet. The post-harvest soil analysis showed that the soil under all intercropping treatment was better in terms of soil electrical conductivity, soil organic carbon and available soil nutrients, namely nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) than in the tree-alone treatment. Kodo millet was least compatible intercrop in the study.”
The abstract directly confirms the land equivalent ratios for Casuarina with little millet and barnyard millet, and notes that kodo millet was the least compatible intercrop.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
Post-harvest soil under all intercropped plots had higher electrical conductivity, organic carbon and available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium than soil under trees alone; the abstract reports no values and no comparison with sole millet.
Partially supportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.
“The post-harvest soil analysis showed that the soil under all intercropping treatment was better in terms of soil electrical conductivity, soil organic carbon and available soil nutrients, namely nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) than in the tree-alone treatment.”
The abstract supports the soil fertility comparison against the tree-alone treatment, but the claim's meta-commentary regarding omitted values and comparisons is not directly stated in the text.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
In a two-year millet-legume study, soil available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, organic carbon and enzyme activities were highest under legume-inclusive treatments and sole legumes, and lower under sole millet and control plots.
Partially supportedField trialField trial
“Soil analysis showed notable improvements under legume-inclusive treatments, with available nitrogen (266.5–306.2 kg ha-1), phosphorus (25.6–37.0 kg ha-1), potassium (207.0–265.2 kg ha-1), organic carbon (1.02–1.26 %) and enzyme activities (urease: 24.97–27.97 µg NH₄- g-1 soil hr-1; protease: 14.06–16.18 µg tyrosine g-1 soil hr-1; dehydrogenase: 105.5–131.2 µg TPF g-1 soil 24 hr-1) surpassing sole millet and control plots.”
The abstract specifies that soil properties improved under legume-inclusive treatments to surpass sole millet and control plots, but does not state that these soil metrics were highest under sole legumes.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
In a three-year groundnut intercropping trial under rainfed conditions, year by treatment interactions were highly significant and treatment rankings were not stable across contrasting rainfall seasons.
SupportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.
“revealed highly significant year × treatment interactions for pod yield, biomass and RWUE (Year × Seedbed: F 4, 12 = 206.66, p < 0.0001; Year × Intercrop: F 6, 18 = 1,980.42, p < 0.0001; Year × Seedbed × Intercrop: F 12, 36 = 4,668.10, p < 0.0001), indicating that treatment rankings were not stable across the contrasting rainfall seasons”
The abstract explicitly confirms that year-by-treatment interactions were highly significant and caused treatment rankings to be unstable across contrasting rainfall seasons during the 3-year trial.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
Adoption of agroecological vegetable cropping systems among 546 Kenyan smallholder farmers was associated with access to extension services, gender of the household head and plot manager, and non-farm income.
Partially supportedCohort studyCohort study
“Household head gender, plot manager gender, and access to extension services had varying positive and negative impacts on the adoption of agroecological cropping systems. In addition, the occupation of the household head and income from non-vegetable farming activities was positively associated with adoption”
The study identified 'income from non-vegetable farming activities' rather than 'non-farm income' as being associated with adoption.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 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.