(+)-abscisic acid · Physiology: osmolytes · Prunus persica (peach)
4 claims from these papers.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 2
2 pairs of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Influence of exogenous substances on fruit quality of peach variety Xiahui 6 (2011)
increaseABA increased the sugar to acid ratio.
Effect of foliar application of ABA on fruit coloration and expression of some related genes in peach (2013)no changeABA had no significant effect on fruit weight, soluble solids or flesh sugar-acid ratio.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effect of foliar application of ABA on fruit coloration and expression of some related genes in peach (2013)
no changeABA had no significant effect on fruit weight, soluble solids or flesh sugar-acid ratio.
Effects of Different Concentration of ABA on Fruit Quality of Peach Cultivar 'Meixiang' (2012)increaseABA significantly increased soluble sugar content.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
None of these papers cites another one here.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 2
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. 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.