hydrogen peroxide · Growth · Olea europaea (common olive)

Results differ3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect · 1 pair of papers confirmed to differ

3 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.

Physiologic responses and gene diversity indicate olive alternative oxidase as a potential source for markers involved in efficient adventitious root induction (2009)
increaseH2O2 treatment increased rooting degree in olive cuttings.
The Effects of IBA and H2O2 on Rooting of 2 Olive Cultivars (2011)
no changeH2O2 alone did not significantly improve rooting in either cultivar versus control.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →

How these papers cite each other

None of these papers cites another one here.

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 1

Physiologic responses and gene diversity indicate olive alternative oxidase as a potential source for markers involved in efficient adventitious root induction · 2009
- positive
  H2O2 treatment increased rooting degree in olive cuttings.

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 2

The Effects of IBA and H2O2 on Rooting of 2 Olive Cultivars · 2011
- no effect
  H2O2 alone did not stimulate rooting in either olive cultivar.
  compared with control
The Effects of IBA and H2O2 on Rooting of 2 Olive Cultivars · 2011
- no effect
  H2O2 alone did not significantly improve rooting in either cultivar versus control.
  compared with control

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.

Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1

How these papers cite each other

Papers reporting a positive result 1

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 2

hydrogen peroxide · growth on other organisms