Echinochloa colona · Oryza sativa (rice)

21 questions: every treatment tested on this organism for this target by at least two papers.

  1. bispyribac-sodiumPositive and negative results5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  2. Triticum aestivumPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  3. dichloromethanePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  4. pendimethalinResults agree8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  5. propanilResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  6. butachlorResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  7. 2,4-DResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  8. ThiobencarbResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  9. bispyribacResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  10. AnilofosResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  11. Cyhalofop-butylResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  12. PenoxsulamResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  13. clomazoneResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  14. methanolResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  15. metsulfuron methylResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  16. quincloracResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  17. herbicidePositive and negative results10 papers: 9 positive, 1 negative or no effect
  18. tillagePositive and negative results6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect
  19. botanicalResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  20. fertilizationResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
  21. organicResults 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.