rotation · Gaeumannomyces tritici · Triticum aestivum (wheat)

Positive and negative results5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

10 claims from these papers.

Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.

How these papers cite each other

None of these papers cites another one here.

Positive resultNegative result or no effect19851990199520002005201020152020
  • 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 4

  1. The effects of various crops on the survival and carry‐over of the wheat take‐all fungus Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici · 1983

  2. Biological suppression of the saprophytic growth of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici in soil · 1987

  3. A comparison of six methods to control take-all in wheat · 1998

  4. Impact of Cropping Sequences and Alternative Hosts on Take-all Management of Winter Wheat in Arkansas · 2009

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1

  1. Impact of cropping and tillage system on take-all disease of winter wheat (Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici) · 2023

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.

rotation on Triticum aestivum (wheat) against other targets