Pratylenchus penetrans · Yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)
9 claims from these papers; 3 citations between them.
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.
- Relative susceptibility of selected cultivars, of potato to Pratylenchus penetrans. (1976)
decreaseNematodes suppressed tuber yield of Katahdin.
Effect of Initial Nematode Population Density on the Interaction of Pratylenchus penetrans and Verticillium dahliae on 'Russet Burbank' Potato. (1998)no changeWithout Verticillium dahliae, P. penetrans did not reduce potato plant growth and tuber yield below the nematode-free control, or did so only at the highest one or two population densities tested.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
3 citations between these papers: 3 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- 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 negative result or no effect 5
Relative susceptibility of selected cultivars, of potato to Pratylenchus penetrans. · 1976
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
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.