Control · Pyrus communis (pear)

1. 1-methylcyclopropeneResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
2. Erwinia amylovoraResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. difenoconazoleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. oxytetracyclineResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. prohexadione-calciumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. fungicidePositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
7. inoculationResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. applicationResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
9. biocontrolResults 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.