Quality: postharvest · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)

1. spinosadResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
2. Allium sativumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. Azadirachta indicaResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. Jatropha curcasResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. N-benzyladenineResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. acetoneResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. tracerResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. botanicalPositive and negative results16 papers: 13 positive, 3 negative or no effect
9. applicationPositive and negative results5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect
10. processingPositive and negative results5 papers: 2 positive, 3 negative or no effect
11. fertilizationPositive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect
12. storageResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. radiationResults 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.