- glyphosatePositive and negative results8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect
- OxadiazonPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- indaziflamPositive and negative results3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect
- ProdiaminePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- diclofopPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- imazaquinPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- pendimethalinPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- simazinePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- topramezonePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- ethofumesateResults agree3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect
- atrazineResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- flumioxazinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- propyzamideResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- herbicidePositive and negative results9 papers: 4 positive, 5 negative or no effect
- fertilizationPositive and negative results3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect
- inoculationResults agree3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect
- grazingResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 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.