Sitophilus granarius · Triticum aestivum (wheat)

1. diatomaceous earthResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
2. Laurus nobilisResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. Ocimum basilicumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. Syzygium aromaticumResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. boric acidResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. carbarylResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. pirimiphos-methylResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. botanicalPositive and negative results7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect
9. infectionResults agree3 papers: 0 positive, 3 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.