Erysiphe necator · Vitis

1. sulfur atomResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
2. myclobutanilResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. Ampelomyces quisqualisResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. copper atomResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
5. kresoxim-methylResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. potassium hydrogencarbonateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. fungicidePositive and negative results6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect
8. uvPositive and negative results6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect
9. applicationPositive and negative results5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect
10. lightPositive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect
11. loss of functionPositive and negative results4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect
12. inoculationPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
13. fertilizationPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
14. infectionPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
15. botanicalResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
16. rotationResults 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.