Brevicoryne brassicae · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)

1. Chrysoperla carneaPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
2. Azadirachta indicaResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. Coccinella septempunctataResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. azadirachtinResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. dimethoateResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. thiamethoxamResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. Beauveria bassianaResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. Jatropha curcasResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
9. Melia azedarachResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
10. endosulfanResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
11. ethanolResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. imidaclopridResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. spinosadResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
14. thiaclopridResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
15. fertilizationPositive and negative results8 papers: 4 positive, 4 negative or no effect
16. insecticidePositive and negative results7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect
17. droughtPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
18. infectionPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
19. uvPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
20. botanicalResults agree14 papers: 14 positive, 0 negative or no effect
21. intercroppingResults agree7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect
22. biocontrolResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
23. applicationResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
24. co2Results 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.