(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid · Survival · Prunus persica (peach)
6 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1
1 pair 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.
- Harvest Date and Size Distribution of Peach Fruit Are Altered with Fall-applied Ethephon (1990)
increaseFall ethephon enhanced flower bud survival after −26C exposure in both peach cultivars.
Effect of Ethephon and GA3 on Time of Flowering in Peach (1986)decreaseEthephon at 200 ppm reduced peach flower bud survival in both years
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
1 citation between these papers: 0 on the same side, 1 across the two sides.
- 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 3
Harvest Date and Size Distribution of Peach Fruit Are Altered with Fall-applied Ethephon · 1990
- positive
AUTUMN EHTREL SPRAYS ON PEACHES; OBSERVATIONS OF WINTER HARDINESS AND BLOOM · 1990
- positive
DORMANT APPLICATIONS OF A SOYBEAN OIL ADJUVANT PLUS ETHEPHON REDUCE PEACH FLOWER BUD SURVIVAL · 2010
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1
Effect of Ethephon and GA3 on Time of Flowering in Peach · 1986
- negative
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.