ethene · Quality: postharvest · Rosa
9 claims from these papers; 7 citations 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.
- Nano-silver Treatments Alleviated the Harmful Effects of Exogenous Ethylene on Cut Roses (2012)
decreaseEthylene impaired ornamental quality and shortened vase life of cut roses.
Effects of Preharvest Conditions and Postharvest Handling on Postharvest Characteristics of Cut Lilies, Roses, Sunflowers, and Zinnias (2009)no changeEthylene did not affect rose vase life.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
7 citations between these papers: 4 on the same side, 3 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 1
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 8
Interrelationships of Ethylene and Abscisic Acid in the Control of Rose Petal Senescence · 1972
- negative
A Question for the Class: Why Do Roses Die? · 1995
- negative
- no effect
Genotypic Variation in the Postharvest Performance and Ethylene Sensitivity of Cut Rose Flowers · 2010
- no effect
Nano-silver Treatments Alleviated the Harmful Effects of Exogenous Ethylene on Cut Roses · 2012
- negative
- negative
- negative
- 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.