Nutrient: content · Vaccinium

1. calcium atomResults differ5 papers: 2 positive, 3 negative or no effect · 1 pair of papers confirmed to differ
2. aluminium atomResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. fertilizationPositive and negative results17 papers: 10 positive, 7 negative or no effect
4. nitrogenPositive and negative results5 papers: 2 positive, 3 negative or no effect
5. applicationPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
6. climate sitePositive and negative results3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect
7. phosphorusPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
8. biocharPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
9. mulchingPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
10. processingPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
11. inoculationResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. co2Results agree3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect
13. coldResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
14. limeResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
15. mycorrhizaResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
16. nanoparticleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
17. otherResults 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.