phorate · Yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)
19 claims from these papers; 5 citations between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 8
8 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.
- Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut (2003)
no changePhorate did not affect yield in either year.
Influence of Planting Date, Fungicide Seed Treatment, and Phorate on Peanut in North Carolina (2019)increasePhorate applied in the seed furrow increased peanut yield 50% of the time.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Sixty-One Years Following Registration, Phorate Applied In-Furrow at Planting Suppresses Development of Late Leaf Spot on Peanut (2020)
increasePod yield was greater after phorate treatment than in nontreated peanut (2,330 vs 2,030 kg/ha; P = 0.0794).
Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut (2003)no changeApplication of phorate does not affect peanut yield in either year.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut (2003)
no changePhorate did not affect yield in either year.
Role of Insecticides in Reducing Thrips Injury to Plants and Incidence of Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus in Virginia Market-Type Peanut (2007)increaseIn-furrow phorate significantly increased pod yield.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut (2003)
no changePhorate did not affect yield in either year.
Impact of Variety, Planting Date and At-plant Insecticide on Thrips and Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus Management in Alabama Peanuts (2025)increaseThimet significantly increased yield across dates and varieties.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut (2003)
no changePhorate did not affect yield in either year.
Sixty-One Years Following Registration, Phorate Applied In-Furrow at Planting Suppresses Development of Late Leaf Spot on Peanut (2020)increasePod yield was greater after phorate treatment than in nontreated peanut (2,330 vs 2,030 kg/ha; P = 0.0794).
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Influence of Planting Date, Fungicide Seed Treatment, and Phorate on Peanut in North Carolina (2019)
increasePhorate applied in the seed furrow increased peanut yield 50% of the time.
Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut (2003)no changeApplication of phorate does not affect peanut yield in either year.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
Show 2 more pairs
- Role of Insecticides in Reducing Thrips Injury to Plants and Incidence of Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus in Virginia Market-Type Peanut (2007)
increaseIn-furrow phorate significantly increased pod yield.
Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut (2003)no changeApplication of phorate does not affect peanut yield in either year.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut (2003)
no changeApplication of phorate does not affect peanut yield in either year.
Impact of Variety, Planting Date and At-plant Insecticide on Thrips and Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus Management in Alabama Peanuts (2025)increaseThimet significantly increased yield across dates and varieties.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
5 citations between these papers: 3 on the same side, 2 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 11
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Influence of Planting Date, Fungicide Seed Treatment, and Phorate on Peanut in North Carolina · 2019
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effect of thiamethoxam seed treatment in peanut · 2021
- positive
- positive
- positive
- no effect
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 5
Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut · 2003
- no effect
Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut · 2003
- no effect
Effect ofBradyrhizobiaInoculant Formulation with Phorate in New Peanut Fields · 2015
- no effect
Effect of Bradyrhizobia Inoculant Formulation with Phorate in New Peanut Fields · 2016
- no effect
- no effect
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.