Yield · Chrysanthemum

38 questions: every treatment tested on this organism for this target by at least two papers.

  1. chlormequat chloridePositive and negative results6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect
  2. ethyl methanesulfonatePositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  3. Gibberellic acidResults agree10 papers: 10 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  4. pendimethalinResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  5. AzospirillumResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  6. N-benzyladenineResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  7. 2,3,5-triiodobenzoic acidResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
  8. Gigaspora margaritaResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  9. dATPResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  10. hexaconazoleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  11. poly(hydroxyalkanoate)Results agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  12. sucroseResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  13. zinc sulfateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  14. fertilizationPositive and negative results39 papers: 36 positive, 3 negative or no effect
  15. growing mediumPositive and negative results8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  16. applicationPositive and negative results6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  17. lightPositive and negative results6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  18. radiationPositive and negative results5 papers: 2 positive, 3 negative or no effect
  19. biocontrolPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  20. heatPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  21. sowing timePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  22. nitrogenResults agree12 papers: 12 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  23. inoculationResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  24. densityResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  25. herbicideResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  26. phosphorusResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  27. potassiumResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  28. in vitroResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  29. irrigationResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  30. mulchingResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  31. mycorrhizaResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  32. coldResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
  33. droughtResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  34. micronutrientResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  35. pruningResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  36. stageResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  37. transplantingResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  38. trap barrierResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.