Alternaria brassicicola · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)

1. iprodioneResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
2. mancozebResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. tebuconazoleResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. Brassica oleracea var. botrytisResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. Copper hydroxideResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. Coscinium fenestratumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. StreptomycesResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. Trichoderma harzianumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
9. Trichoderma virideResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
10. Zingiber cassumunarResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
11. azoxystrobinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. carbendazimResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. hexaconazoleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
14. propiconazoleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
15. trifloxystrobinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
16. botanicalPositive and negative results7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect
17. fertilizationPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
18. loss of functionPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
19. applicationResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
20. fungicideResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
21. growing mediumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
22. infectionResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
23. inoculationResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
24. seed treatmentResults 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.