Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum · Citrullus lanatus (watermelon)

1. Vicia villosaPositive and negative results5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect
2. Triticum aestivumResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. Lagenaria sicerariaResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. Pseudomonas fluorescensResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. Trichoderma harzianumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. loss of functionPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
7. graftingResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. inoculationResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
9. intercroppingResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
10. nanoparticleResults 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.