Erwinia amylovora · Pyrus communis (pear)

1. Pantoea agglomeransResults agree6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect
2. Pseudomonas fluorescensResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. antimicrobial agentResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. Allium sativumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. kasugamycinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. oxytetracyclineResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. streptomycinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. inoculationPositive and negative results12 papers: 6 positive, 6 negative or no effect
9. loss of functionPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
10. applicationResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
11. botanicalResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. biocontrolResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. infectionResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
14. processingResults 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.