- lambda-cyhalothrinPositive and negative results4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- quinalphosPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- spinosadResults agree6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- Azadirachta indicaResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- acephateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- azadirachtinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- carbarylResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- chlorantraniliproleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- emamectin benzoateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- imidaclopridResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- indoxacarbResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- intercroppingPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
- applicationResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- botanicalResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
- insecticideResults 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.