Phenology · Prunus persica (peach)

1. (2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acidPositive and negative results7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect
2. DaminozidePositive and negative results6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect
3. Gibberellic acidPositive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect
4. 1-methylcyclopropenePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
5. N-benzyladeninePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
6. cyanamideResults agree6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. paclobutrazolResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. 2-chloroethyl groupResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
9. calcium atomResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
10. phosphonic acidResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
11. potassium nitrateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. soybean oilResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. pruningPositive and negative results13 papers: 11 positive, 2 negative or no effect
14. applicationPositive and negative results10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect
15. fertilizationPositive and negative results4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect
16. classPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
17. irrigationPositive and negative results3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect
18. lightPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
19. shadePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
20. graftingResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
21. heatResults 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.