- naringeninResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- (-)-methyl jasmonateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- (2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acidResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- etheneResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- gamma-aminobutyric acidResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- selenium atomResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- sodium chlorideResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
- sodium nitroprussideResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- zinc oxideResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- salinityResults differ3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect · 1 pair of papers confirmed to differ
- processingPositive and negative results18 papers: 16 positive, 2 negative or no effect
- botanicalPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- inoculationPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- seed treatmentPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- applicationResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- lightResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- nanoparticleResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- physical treatmentResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- stageResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- droughtResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- fertilizationResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- heatResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- humidityResults 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.