infection · Phylloxera · Vitis

Positive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

13 claims from these papers; 3 citations between them.

Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.

How these papers cite each other

3 citations between these papers: 1 on the same side, 2 across the two sides.

Positive resultNegative result or no effect201120122013201420152016201720182019
  • Positive result
  • Negative result or no effect
  • Citation, pointing to the cited paper
  • Citation across the two sides
  • Larger circle: more citations overall

Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.

Papers reporting a positive result 2

  1. Grape root cell features related to phylloxera resistance and changes of anatomy and endogenous hormones during nodosity and tuberosity formation · 2011

    cited by 1 paper here

  2. The relationship between grape phylloxera and Fusarium root infection · 2019

    cites 1 paper here

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 2

  1. Phylloxera infestation and the uptake and distribution of 13C and 15N tracers in grape vines · 2015

    cites 2 papers here

  2. Effects of fungal root infection on the vigor of grapevines infested by root-feeding grape phylloxera · 2015

    cited by 2 papers here

A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. 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.

infection on Vitis against other targets