Nutrient: content · Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine)

1. Paxillus involutusPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
2. Thelephora terrestrisPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
3. fertilizationPositive and negative results8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect
4. inoculationPositive and negative results5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect
5. mycorrhizaPositive and negative results5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect
6. nitrogenPositive and negative results5 papers: 1 positive, 4 negative or no effect
7. growing mediumPositive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect
8. potassiumPositive and negative results4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect
9. pruningPositive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect
10. droughtResults agree4 papers: 0 positive, 4 negative or no effect
11. co2Results agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. in vitroResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
13. irrigationResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
14. shadeResults 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.