Disease · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)

1. metalaxylPositive and negative results7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect
2. Azadirachta indicaResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. Pseudomonas fluorescensResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. mancozebResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. propiconazoleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. applicationPositive and negative results8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect
7. seed treatmentPositive and negative results7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect
8. inoculationPositive and negative results6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect
9. droughtPositive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect
10. fungicidePositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
11. nitrogenPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
12. co2Positive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
13. fertilizationPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
14. botanicalResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
15. mycorrhizaResults 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.