Quality: postharvest · Prunus armeniaca (apricot)

1. 1-methylcyclopropeneResults agree19 papers: 19 positive, 0 negative or no effect
2. calcium chloride dihydrateResults agree9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. salicylic acidResults agree9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. putrescineResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. Gibberellic acidResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. calcium atomResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. melatoninResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. (-)-methyl jasmonateResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
9. potassium permanganateResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
10. Rhizopus stoloniferResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
11. Terminalia catappaResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
12. sodium disulfiteResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. zinc sulfateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
14. applicationResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
15. processingResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
16. fertilizationResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
17. heatResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
18. graftingResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
19. nanoparticleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
20. pruningResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
21. radiationResults 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.