Quality: sugar starch · Prunus persica (peach)

1. 1-methylcyclopropenePositive and negative results11 papers: 9 positive, 2 negative or no effect
2. putrescinePositive and negative results9 papers: 8 positive, 1 negative or no effect
3. iron(2+) sulfate (anhydrous)Positive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
4. nitric oxidePositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
5. ascorbic acidPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
6. boron atomPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
7. ethenePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
8. selenium atomPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
9. pruningPositive and negative results28 papers: 23 positive, 5 negative or no effect
10. applicationPositive and negative results20 papers: 18 positive, 2 negative or no effect
11. storagePositive and negative results18 papers: 6 positive, 12 negative or no effect
12. fertilizationPositive and negative results15 papers: 11 positive, 4 negative or no effect
13. irrigationPositive and negative results13 papers: 10 positive, 3 negative or no effect
14. droughtPositive and negative results8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect
15. graftingPositive and negative results6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect
16. heatPositive and negative results6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect
17. mulchingPositive and negative results5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect
18. coldPositive and negative results4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect
19. trap barrierPositive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect
20. uvPositive and negative results3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect
21. processingPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 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.