Maruca vitrata · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)

1. flubendiamidePositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
2. spinosadResults agree9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. chlorantraniliproleResults agree7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. indoxacarbResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. emamectin benzoateResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. Bacillus thuringiensisResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. thiodicarbResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. applicationResults 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.