application · Thrips · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)

Positive and negative results6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

11 claims from these papers; 2 citations between them.

Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.

How these papers cite each other

2 citations between these papers: 1 on the same side, 1 across the two sides.

Positive resultNegative result or no effect19921994199619982000200220042006
  • 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 4

  1. Seasonal Abundance of Thrips (Thysanoptera: Suborders Terebrantia and Tubulifera) in Georgia Flue-Cured Tobacco and Impact of Management Practices on the Incidence of Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus · 1992

    cited by 1 paper here

  2. Impact of Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Management Practices on Suppression of Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus and Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) Control in Flue-Cured Tobacco · 2002

  3. Incidence of Thrips and Tomato Spotted Wilt Tospovirus in Flue-Cured Tobacco Protected from Early Season Insect Pest Infestations · 2006

    cites 2 papers here

  4. Incidence of Thrips and Tomato Spotted Wilt Tospovirus in Flue-Cured Tobacco Protected from Early Season Insect Pest Infestations · 2006

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 2

  1. Impact of Early-Season Thrips Management on Reducing the Risks of Spotted Wilt Virus and Suppressing Aphid Populations in Flue-Cured Tobacco · 2005

    cited by 1 paper here

  2. Impact of Early-Season Thrips Management on Reducing the Risks of Spotted Wilt Virus and Suppressing Aphid Populations in Flue-Cured Tobacco · 2005

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.

application on Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) against other targets

application · Thrips on other organisms