phorate · Chamaepsila rosae · Daucus carota (carrot)
4 claims from these papers.
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.
Each paper in the lists below is placed by all its claims here taken together, positive if any claim is positive. A pair compares one claim of each paper, so a paper placed on the positive side can also report a decrease or no effect.
- Effects of phorate placement on carrot fly control, seedling density and terminal residues in the crop (1974)
decreaseAll phorate treatments reduced carrot fly larval damage to carrot roots.
Efficacy of reduced-rate insecticide applications for the control of the carrot fly (Psila rosae F.) in New Zealand (1997)no changePhorate granules at drilling did not significantly reduce third generation carrot fly damage at any rate.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
Papers reporting a positive result 2
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.