Helicoverpa armigera · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)

1. Trichogramma chilonisPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
2. spinosadResults agree9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. chlorantraniliproleResults agree8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. flubendiamideResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. indoxacarbResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. Azadirachta indicaResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. Beauveria bassianaResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. acetamipridResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
9. chlorpyrifosResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
10. cypermethrinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
11. endosulfanResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. lambda-cyhalothrinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. insecticideResults differ5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect · 1 pair of papers confirmed to differ
14. botanicalPositive and negative results9 papers: 6 positive, 3 negative or no effect
15. infectionPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
16. intercroppingPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
17. applicationResults agree8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect
18. biocontrolResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
19. fertilizationResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
20. transgenicResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
21. ipmResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
22. trap barrierResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 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.